In Re Young

9 Cal.4th 1052 (1995) 892 P.2d 148 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 114 In re H. PETER YOUNG on Contempt.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROYAL KENNETH HAYES, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. S004725. Supreme Court of California.

April 4, 1995. [1053] COUNSEL

H. Peter Young, in pro. per.

OPINION

THE COURT.

On November 4, 1994, after granting Attorney H. Peter Young 19 extensions of time to file the appellant's opening brief in the case of People v. Hayes (S004725, app. pending), this court ordered Young to file the brief on or before December 5, 1994. Young failed to comply with that order and, instead, sought a 20th extension of time to file the brief.

On January 11, 1995, in response to an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the November 4, 1994, order, Young appeared before this court and was ordered to file the brief on or before March 1, 1995, and to appear before this court on March 7, 1995.

Young failed to file the brief on or before March 1, 1995, as ordered on January 11, 1995. On his representation that he was unable to appear on March 7, 1995, the order of January 11, 1995, was modified and Young was ordered to appear before this court on Tuesday, April 4, 1995. He was further ordered to produce a copy of that part of the appellant's opening brief which had been completed by that date if the brief had not been filed earlier.

(1) Young appeared before the court on this date. The court finds that he has not complied with the court's orders of November 4, 1994, and January 11, 1995. The court also finds that Young was aware of and had the ability to comply with those orders and failed to do so. Willful failure to comply with an order of the court constitutes contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)5.)

The failure to comply with the November 4, 1994, and January 11, 1995, orders of this court is an act occurring in the immediate view and presence of